In mid-March, two weeks before Finch briefed the Connecticut Post editorial board on his proposed budget sent the document to the City Council, state education officials, via email, reminded the administration of its fiscal responsibilities to the Bridgeport public schools.

The emails were released by the state education department late Thursday.

Sherwood was perplexed, writing back he thought "Bridgeport would be fine this year."

"Where does the ... increase come from?" Sherwood wrote. "I cannot just increase the budget without that justification."

On the face of it, there is no mystery.

The state education reforms passed last year by Malloy and the General Assembly required the lowest-performing districts, including Bridgeport, to not only spend at least as much on education in 2013-14 as in the current fiscal year, but to increase that contribution by a percentage over the next four years.

The multiyear program is referred to as the minimum budget requirement. For fiscal year 2013-14, however, only Bridgeport is expected to increase its education spending, state officials said.

Although the minimum budget requirement needs to be renewed by the Legislature, Malloy and the General Assembly's Appropriations Committee have signaled their strong support to do so.

In response to Sherwood's concerns, the state education officials emailed the Finch administration their preliminary calculations behind the $3.3 million. That was the last email provided by the state to the Connecticut Post.

Despite those mid-March warnings, when Finch released his 2013-14 budget April 1, the plan maintained the same level of funding for schools as the current fiscal year.

Neither he nor Sherwood at the time gave any indication there was a dispute with the state.

Finch did present three budget scenarios based on fears of severe cuts in state aid. But none contemplated the possibility of having to spend another $3.3 million on education.

"If it was even considered at risk it would have been put in each (scenario)," said Councilwoman Susan Brannelly, D-130, a co-chairman of the council's budget committee. "It was mentioned to us as a logistic, non-issue that needed to be ironed out."

But in mid-April Bridgeport Superintendent Paul Vallas and the city's school board unveiled a spending plan that counted on the $3.3 million, and suddenly the matter moved from a logistical issue to a potential budget crisis.

The council is already struggling to close huge gaps in state aid without agreeing to Finch's proposed $391 tax increase for homes and $981 increase for businesses.

Finch thinks highly of Vallas, a celebrity in the world of education reform on whom the mayor is counting to turn around the city's public schools. And school board Chairman Kenneth Moales was Finch's campaign treasurer.

But on the issue of the $3.3 million, Moales does not mince words.

"He is in trouble," Moales said recently. "Somehow, he is going to have to come up with the extra dollars. If he doesn't, he is breaking (state) law."

Finch declined to comment on the situation when approached by the Connecticut Post Wednesday evening. Further questioning was cut off by his spokeswoman, Elaine Ficarra.

"You're not going to put him on the spot over here ... to talk about it, OK?" she said.

On Thursday, Ficarra issued a brief statement that the Finch administration was "incredibly focused on this issue and we are working diligently to resolve it," but offered no further explanation.

Doba confirmed a meeting has been scheduled this week between state and city officials.

State Rep. Auden Grogins, D-Bridgeport, said from what she understands, there are differing interpretations of the minimum budget requirement and how to apply the formula.

"This new law is complicated," Grogins said.

She also suggested there might have been some confusion in Bridgeport because the governor and General Assembly still must vote to extend the minimum budget requirement into 2013-14.

Brannelly said the Finch administration and the city's legislative delegation have expressed confidence that the city will not be on the hook for the additional $3.3 million.

"But clearly our committee is very concerned we will be responsible," she said.

Under the law, the city would have until the end of the next fiscal year to come up with the $3.3 million. If noncompliant at the end of that time, Bridgeport would lose double the amount in state education aid for each $1 it fell short in the 2015-16 fiscal year.

James Finley, executive director of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, said the group has Bridgeport's back. Finch is a CCM first vice president. Finley said the city is being put in an unfair situation by the state.

"Bridgeport is almost the poster child of the challenges that our urban centers face," Finley said. "Property taxes are extremely high in Bridgeport for a variety of reasons ... At the same time, the state is chronically under-funding education and also pulling back their support on non-education revenues."